“Part 17 brings that one relationships anywhere between a couple of Hindus solemnised just after the commencement of Work are emptiness in the event that during the go out of these relationships both cluster had a loved one life, and that the fresh new provisions off areas 494 and you can 495 ipc shall pertain properly. The wedding anywhere between one or two Hindus was void because from Part 17 if the a few criteria is actually fulfilled: (i) the marriage try solemnised following the commencement of one’s Act; (ii) at go out of such relationship, sometimes group got a wife living. In the event the labai in the February 1962 cannot be said to be ‘solemnised’, one wedding will never be void from the virtue off Part 17 of Operate and you can Point 494 IPC does not apply at instance functions with the matrimony just like the got a wife life.”
Into the Rakeya Bibi v
twenty eight. This v. [Air 1966 South carolina 614 = 1966 step 1 SCR 539] The matter is again felt inside Priya Bala Ghosh v. When you look at the Gopal Lal v. Condition Away from Rajasthan [1979 2 SCC 170 = Air 1979 Sc 713 = 1979 2 SCR 1171] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., talking to the Judge, observed given that significantly less than: (SCC p. 173, para 5)
“[W]right here a spouse contracts a second relationship since first wedding is still subsisting this new spouse was accountable for bigamy significantly less than Area 494 if it is turned-out that next wedding is a valid one in the feeling your called for ceremonies required legally otherwise of the personalized have been in reality performed. ”
29. In view of the significantly more than, if a person marries the second day during the life of their partner, including relationship except that being gap around Sections 11 and you may 17 of Hindu Relationship Work, would also constitute an offense and this people could well be accountable is prosecuted under Section 494 IPC. While Section 17 talks regarding marriage between a couple “Hindus”, Part 494 cannot consider one religious denomination.
30. Now, conversion otherwise apostasy does not immediately melt a married relationship currently solemnised in Hindu Wedding Act. They simply will bring a ground having separation less than Part thirteen. The appropriate part of Point 13 provides because the under:
“13. (1) One relationship solemnised, if or not prior to otherwise adopting the commencement associated with Operate, will get, on a great petition displayed because of the sometimes the latest husband or the partner, end up being mixed by the a good decree off divorce or separation on the ground you to definitely one other team-
H.P Admn
29. Less than Part ten which provides having official separation, conversion to another faith has started to become a footing getting a ended because of the endment) Operate, 1976. The initial relationship, therefore, isn’t impacted and it also continues to subsist. If for example the “marital” status is not inspired due to the wedding nonetheless subsisting, their second matrimony qua the present marriage would-be void and you will regardless of sales he would feel prone to getting charged for the offense away from bigamy lower than Area 494.
thirty-two. Changes out-of faith does not reduce the wedding did within the Hindu Matrimony Work between one or two Hindus. Apostasy does not give an-end the latest civil debt or brand new matrimonial bond, however, apostasy try a ground to have separation lower than Area thirteen once the and additionally a footing having official breakup under Point ten of your Hindu y. Even as we have seen significantly more than, the fresh Hindu y”. The second wedding, within the lifetime of brand new companion, could be emptiness under Parts 11 and 17, as well as becoming an offense.
33. Within the Govt. from Bombay v. Ganga ILR 1880 cuatro Bom 330 and therefore however try an instance felt like before the getting into push of the Hindu Relationships Operate, it actually was held by the Bombay High Judge that where an effective Hindu married woman having an excellent Hindu spouse way of life ”, she commits this new offence off polyandry since the, of the mere conversion, the previous wedding doesn’t drain. Others decisions according to that it principle is Budansa Rowther v. Fatima Bi Sky 1914 Enraged 192, Emperor v. Ruri Heavens 1919 Lah 389 and you will Jamna Devi v. Mul Raj 1907 forty-two Pr 1907. Anil Kumar Mukherji ILR 1948 2 Cal 119 it actually was stored you to definitely under Hindu laws, the apostasy of just one of one’s spouses cannot melt new relationships. During the Sayeda Khatoon v. M. Obadiah 1944-45 forty-two CWN 745 it actually was stored one a wedding solemnised from inside the Asia based on one personal law cannot be morsian Skandinavian mixed according to another private laws simply because one of several people keeps altered their particular faith.
